In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court finding, which granted a declaration under section 819 of the Companies Act 2014 (CA 2014), restricting the appellant director (Appellant) from acting as a director or secretary of a company for a period of five years, unless the company meets the requirements set out in subsection (3) of section 819.

Eight lessons from previous recessions

It does not take a professional economist to predict that a serious economic downturn is possible in the UK. Given that workforces will be impacted by this, many companies providing workforce support services are likely to be particularly affected.

Introduction

Informal workout agreements can renegotiate, delay, reduce or waive pre-existing debts owed by a company. For the debtor company, the main purpose of entering into an informal workout is to obtain agreements from its creditors to relinquish rights and refrain from enforcing certain debt covenants. The following are some commonly used informal workout mechanisms:

In brief

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company’s creditors.

Contents

This is an important update in the Australian corporate and insolvency law context because, in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court (being the UK’s highest court) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by directors to creditors in certain circumstances (creditor duty). Under the common law and equity (together, general law), there is a gateway to applicability of the creditor duty in Australia.

The recent case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] has clarified what is a ‘relevant debt’ of a company which uses a ‘prohibited name’ and for which a director or person who manages that company can be personally liable for. 

Who will be interested in this article?

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (“SC”) has recently handed down a decision in the case of BTI v Sequana, dealing with the powers and duties of company directors. The appeal was expected to be of considerable importance.

This alert is especially relevant to companies, and directors of companies, in financial distress, as well as creditors and insolvency practitioners.

Key Takeaways

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Ors [2022] UKSC 25. This judgment arose from an appeal brought by BTI 2014 LLC against a decision of the English Court of Appeal in 2019.

The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment, which as Lord Reed noted, considered issues that go to the heart of our understanding of company law and are of considerable practical importance to the management of companies.

Background to the Appeal

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: The actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has, in its judgment dated September 19, 2022, in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan [Civil Appeal No. 563 of 2020], held that in deciding cases pertaining to insider trading, the actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential.